BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

705 results for “disallowance”+ Section 10(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai17,149Delhi13,758Chennai4,809Bangalore4,785Kolkata4,400Ahmedabad3,417Pune3,195Hyderabad2,194Jaipur1,922Chandigarh1,213Surat1,190Indore1,072Cochin875Visakhapatnam748Raipur705Cuttack605Rajkot599Karnataka564Amritsar522Nagpur469Lucknow403Panaji259Jodhpur231Agra231Ranchi194Guwahati192Telangana155Allahabad133SC129Patna128Dehradun127Calcutta102Jabalpur82Kerala61Varanasi53Punjab & Haryana30Rajasthan11Orissa10Himachal Pradesh7A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN6Gauhati2D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Bombay1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Andhra Pradesh1Tripura1Uttarakhand1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Addition to Income86Disallowance71Section 80P(2)62Section 143(3)45Deduction37Section 4032Section 26323TDS22Section 80I21Section 68

SHUBH KARAN MAHNOT, AMBIKAPUR,AMBIKAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed/allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 155/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 155/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shubh Karan Mahnot Prop. M/S. Bikaner Agencies, Tulshi Chowk, Near Primary School, Gangapur, Ambikapur (C.G.)-497 001 Pan : Aalhs2528G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Ambikapur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

3) of the Act. 10 Shubh Karan Mahnot Vs. ITO, Ward-Ambikapur 16. Apropos the claim of the assessee that the respective payments made towards rent of four godowns were lower than Rs.10,000/- each, therefore, no disallowance of the same could have been made in absence of violation of the mandate of Section

Showing 1–20 of 705 · Page 1 of 36

...
20
Natural Justice19
Section 25017

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), BILASPUR vs. MESERS NARMADA DRINKS PRIVATE LIMITED, BILASPUR

In the result ground No. 2 & 3 of the appeal of the revenue stands rejected

ITA 89/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 89/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs M/S Narmada Drinks Private Limited Circle-1(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Sirgitti Industrial Area, Tifra, Bilaspur Mahima Complex, Bilaspur (C.G.) (C.G.) Pan: Aaacn5880C (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 92C

disallowance u/s 40A (3) for Rs. 3,16,84,828/-, it was the submission of Ld. CIT DR that the Ld. AO has rightly made the additions and the same is worth to be upheld. The observations of the Ld. AO are reiterated, which are extracted as under: 9.8 The bills do not mention the details of owner of truck

C.G. BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED ,RAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee company is dismissed

ITA 300/RPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.300/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 C.G Buildcon Private Limited B-1, 3Rd Floor, C.G. Elite, Opp. Mandi Gate, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri (C.G.)-492 004 Pan: Aaccc5355P

For Appellant: Shri S.N Agrawal, CA (Joined virtually)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 801Section 80I

disallowance of deduction at Rs. 68,50,234/- u/s 80(IB)(10) of the Act. Briefly, the appellant was engaged in a residential project namely C.G. Heights and claimed to be approved and developed with the consent of Nagarpalika Nigam, Raipur and the appellant claimed deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, which was denied by the AO stating that

M/S. G.P. INFRAVENTURES ,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), RAIPUR

The appeal of the department stands disposed off

ITA 94/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.76/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), V M/S G.P. Infraventures, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, S Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, Central Revenue Building, Raipur (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) : (""यथ" / Respondent) (Ita No.94/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S G.P. Infraventures, V Income Tax Officer-1(4), Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, S Raipur Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of : 23.11.2023 7Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 68

disallowance u/s 40A (3) of the IT Act on account of amount paid towards purchase of land which is stock-in trade of the assessee and claimed as expenditure as the assessee had not brought anything before the Assessing officer which showed that the cash payments were made out of business expediency? 4. "Whether on the facts and circumstances

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), RAIPUR vs. MESERS G P INFRAVENTURES, RAIPUR

The appeal of the department stands disposed off

ITA 76/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.76/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), V M/S G.P. Infraventures, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, S Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, Central Revenue Building, Raipur (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) : (""यथ" / Respondent) (Ita No.94/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S G.P. Infraventures, V Income Tax Officer-1(4), Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, S Raipur Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of : 23.11.2023 7Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 68

disallowance u/s 40A (3) of the IT Act on account of amount paid towards purchase of land which is stock-in trade of the assessee and claimed as expenditure as the assessee had not brought anything before the Assessing officer which showed that the cash payments were made out of business expediency? 4. "Whether on the facts and circumstances

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. MARUTI CLEAN COAL AND POWER LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 558/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. /It(Ss)A No.19/Rpr/2025 Co No.19/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur (C.G.) ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Maruti Clean Coal & Power Limited 8Th Floor, Cbd Complex, Sector-21, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Raipur-492 018 Pan: Aadcm4810C ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri Salil Kapoor &For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, CIT-DR

3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,53,46,562/- made by the A.O on account of disallowance of 10% of foreign outward remittance? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

SHRI TIRATH RAJ SHUKLA,BHILAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHILAI

In the result, appeal of the assesee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 07/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Tirth Raj Sukla 1/3, Maitri Nagar, Risali, Bhilai (C.G.). Pan : Atqps4633J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bhilai (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :Shri S.R Rao, Advocate Revenue By :Shri G.N Singh, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri S.R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 69C

10 Shri Tirth Raj Sukla Vs. ITO-1(2) property in question as an investment, even if it is to be presumed that the same in the coming times is to be commercially exploited by him for carving out residential plots, the same merely on the said basis would not trigger the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-2(1)BHILAI, BHILAI(CG) vs. M/S SMS SHIVNATH INFRASSTRUCTURE PVT LTD., DURG, DURG(CG)

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 87/BIL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.87/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.107/Rpr/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Vs Pr.Cit-2, Raipur Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, Adv. & MukeshFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 36Section 80ISection 80l

disallowed and added to the income of the appellant. The Appellant had devised the transaction in such a way that profit of eligible business for deduction under provisions of section 80IA(10) of the Act arise more than the profit derived in the ordinary course of such eligible business. Ld CIT(A) had not appreciated the facts of the case

M/S SMS SHIVNATH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,DURG(CG) vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 107/BIL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.87/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.107/Rpr/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Vs Pr.Cit-2, Raipur Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, Adv. & MukeshFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 36Section 80ISection 80l

disallowed and added to the income of the appellant. The Appellant had devised the transaction in such a way that profit of eligible business for deduction under provisions of section 80IA(10) of the Act arise more than the profit derived in the ordinary course of such eligible business. Ld CIT(A) had not appreciated the facts of the case

JOINT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE -I, BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 21/BIL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury,Jm Sl.

For Appellant: S/ShriAjitKorde, S.R. RaoFor Respondent: ShriR.K. Singh
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 220(2)

10% of the tax as determined under sub-section (1) of section 115WE or sub-section (1) of section 143 or on regular assessment. In the instant case, the alleged refund of Rs.33,46,03,238/- including interest of Rs.3,71,78,138/- was neither issued under sub section (1) of 143 nor on regular assessment. Rather, the refund

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-RANGE-1,, BILASPUR vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,, BILASPUR

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 3/BIL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury,Jm Sl.

For Appellant: S/ShriAjitKorde, S.R. RaoFor Respondent: ShriR.K. Singh
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 220(2)

10% of the tax as determined under sub-section (1) of section 115WE or sub-section (1) of section 143 or on regular assessment. In the instant case, the alleged refund of Rs.33,46,03,238/- including interest of Rs.3,71,78,138/- was neither issued under sub section (1) of 143 nor on regular assessment. Rather, the refund

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 42/RPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, C.A
Section 40A(3)

disallowance u/s. 40A(3) of the Act in the AYs. 2009- 10 to 2012-13 stating that cash payments have been made in excess of the limit of Rs 20000/-. Alternately the AO has also relied on Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 40/RPR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, C.A
Section 40A(3)

disallowance u/s. 40A(3) of the Act in the AYs. 2009- 10 to 2012-13 stating that cash payments have been made in excess of the limit of Rs 20000/-. Alternately the AO has also relied on Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 41/RPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, C.A
Section 40A(3)

disallowance u/s. 40A(3) of the Act in the AYs. 2009- 10 to 2012-13 stating that cash payments have been made in excess of the limit of Rs 20000/-. Alternately the AO has also relied on Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 39/RPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, C.A
Section 40A(3)

disallowance u/s. 40A(3) of the Act in the AYs. 2009- 10 to 2012-13 stating that cash payments have been made in excess of the limit of Rs 20000/-. Alternately the AO has also relied on Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 37/RPR/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, C.A
Section 40A(3)

disallowance u/s. 40A(3) of the Act in the AYs. 2009- 10 to 2012-13 stating that cash payments have been made in excess of the limit of Rs 20000/-. Alternately the AO has also relied on Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 38/RPR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, C.A
Section 40A(3)

disallowance u/s. 40A(3) of the Act in the AYs. 2009- 10 to 2012-13 stating that cash payments have been made in excess of the limit of Rs 20000/-. Alternately the AO has also relied on Section

NANESH PROJECTS,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 63/RPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C.Roy, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 43B

3. The issue remained before us to be decided with respect of the amount of Rs.7,66,312/- which were disallowed on account of “disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return.” Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged

PRIYESH SINGHANIA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 462/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.462/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Priyesh Singhania 730/1, Radha Kunj, Opposite Vip Guest House, Pahuna, Shankar Nagar Main Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aoups7838A ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 194D

3. In this case, intimation has been finalized as per assessment u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for 5 Priyesh Singhania Vs. ITO, Circle-1(2), Raipur short ‘the Act’) wherein certain disallowance has been made. The relevant facts in this regard are extracted as follows: “Facts involved in the issue is that the appellant

MITESH SINGHANIA,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2) RAIPUR, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 410/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.410/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mitesh Singhania Singhania Bhawan, Subhas Road, Near Telghani Naka, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Avops1474P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 194DSection 80C(5)

3. In this case, intimation has been finalized as per assessment u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) wherein certain disallowance has been made. The relevant facts in this regard are extracted as follows: “Facts involved in the issue is that the appellant is an individual and had taken a life insurance policy